Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The New pages patrol noticeboard or NPP/N exists to provide a simple means for editors to request review of and provide feedback on the performance of an individual new page patroller. Unlike many other forms of dispute resolution, providing a notification of the discussion on the patroller's user talk page is not required.

How to list a new request[edit]

  • Be civil, as is expected of everyone who edits Wikipedia.
  • Start a new section at the bottom of this page, with the title matching the user name of the patroller.
  • Provide your question or comment, why you are requesting review and/or feedback, and any other information that may be relevant to the person reviewing your post.
  • Sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~

Providing a NPP review[edit]

  • Be civil.
  • Use plain language. Do not assume that the person requesting the review is familiar with Wikipedia's lexicon.
  • Review the relevant article(s) history; the requesting editor's contributions and talk page history; and the reviewer's page curation log, talk page, and contributions.
  • Provide a brief (2-3 sentence) analysis of the reviewer's actions. If any follow-up is performed elsewhere, provide a link or diff for reference.
  • Avoid long, drawn out threads, instead sticking to a terse question/answer format. If request already has an answer, consider not chiming in.

Anyone except the original page patroller may provide a NPP review. However, reviews are most likely to be useful if they are performed by users with a good understanding of patrolling new pages and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you receive feedback from another editor that your review of an issue listed here was not adequate, please consider whether it is a good idea for you to continue performing reviews.

Common NPP outcomes[edit]

Note - please update these outcomes as conjecture yields to experience.

  • Explain the issues - if the patroller's actions appear to have been correct, explain why each action, and particularly each tag, was performed on or added to the article.
  • Provide feedback to the patroller - for minor issues, a simple talkback notice on the patroller's talk page linking to the review may suffice. For repeated or widespread violations, a sterner warning or formal warning template may be warranted.
  • Escalate the issue - if the patroller's actions are particularly problematic or ongoing, escalation to more formal means of dispute resolution may be necessary.
  • Remove the request - NPP review requests should be removed if they are clearly abusive. Closed good-faith requests will be archived after a period of time.

New page patrol review requests[edit]

Tutelary[edit]

Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has had ongoing problems correctly identifying candidates for speedy deletion. Multiple editors have attempted to address the issue with them on their talk page:

At one point the user agreed to stop with the new page patrols [8] but has broken their word and kept on doing them. At other times, their response has just been to blank the notification.

Most recently, they nominated a species article for A1 and A7, in clear violation of the guidelines for both. This editor is clearly acting in good faith, but they appear to lack the experience to be making speedy deletion nominations. Since they have not demonstrated a willingness to stop voluntarily, this requires community action in my opinion. I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at their nominations (possibly an admin so they can review the deleted nominations as well) to see if they agree that a formal topic ban from CSD nominations is the best way to prevent further disruption. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I think this is a misunderstanding. I guess I'll start with the species article that you were mentioning. It was clearly an A1 when I glanced at it. When it was not previously redirected by an admin, it only had the body of Small-Scaled Lizard. I was perplexed, so when I Googled it with quotes and what not, as to find the number of search results with purely that within it, [got a whopping 8 results.] The 'lizard' portion of it, and the shortness of the length did not tell me that it was anything more, so I sought to nominate for no context. Surely you can see my reasoning for doing so, as the article had but three words in it (besides the infobox) and even later, the reviewing administrator redirected it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urosaurus_microsculatus&diff=608830088&oldid=608826615
  • Data-in-transit. I will not contest this one, as it was one month ago (and I would consider this one to be stale) but it was when I thought A7 applied to everything that didn't have a display of significance. I now know this not to be the case, and have taken that to heart. This will remain as just a sole reminder of that for me.
  • Esviet. Again, this was when I did not know the more obscure workings of speedy deletion. Over one month old. If you go to the page, you will see that it's been deleted by a reviewing administrator under a different speedy deletion criteria. I now know this criteria does not apply to content not in English, and have tagged multiple articles under the {{not english}} template, no longer proposing them for deletion. I acknowledge that this was one again of my more 'learning' mistakes.
  • Nightwalkin' Again, another learning mistake. I sought to nominate it for an A9, but I was more proficient at nominating articles for an A7. but I thought that it did not assert significance, nor was I aware at that time that there was a notability standard for musicians and bands, which this did clearly have. "Into My Secret" was released as the lead single, peaking at No. 9 on the Hot Dance US charts, as well as Pre-production for Nightwalkin' began in early 1986[2] after Alisha's initial success on the club charts.
  • Demi Ucok: A mistake of mine for an A7. I did not realize that A7 did not apply to films. If you look at the article, it's but 6 words. You can clearly see why I'd nominate it for an A7, as if it was not a film, it would've qualified. However, I now know that creative works are exempt. I've actually afd'd a recent film because I did not feel it had any notability, and it was deleted under the afd. (after I recently PROD'd it and that was contested. Knew I couldn't replace it so Afd'd.) Here that is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Price_of_Democracy
  • International Business Project has been speedily deleted under A1 and A7, ironically enough. I'm not sure the circumstances of what I tagged it as, but that is ironically true in this situation.
  • 100_Computing_Lessons I thought was an advertisement for the book series (and if you go to the article now, you can see it still is somewhat advertisement-ey.) 100_Computing_Lessons The A7 category was wrong, but I believe the G11 category was fitting at the time.
  • Live_at_the_royal_theatre At the point, I saw the user was blocked (using a special userscript which will slash out their name if they're blocked) and saw there was a speedy deletion criteria for it. I believed it was an A7 because from the title, it looked like the name of a show at a theatre, which would qualify it as an organized event, but didn't state why it was significant. The name of it was an album, and it was only in the small text in the infobox that said this.
  • Whittl Again, another obscure thing, that any indicator of significance, even as small as this, is enough to avoid an A7. The startup is backed by Origin Venture[2], OCA Ventures[3], and Amicus Capital.[4] that means it qualifies past an A7.
  • Saintseneca I think was another misinterpreted nomination on my part of A7, because of the claim of significance Saintseneca’s latest album Dark Arc was released in April 2014 through ANTI- Records.[3]
  • The funny thing about having to stop new page patrolling is that I wanted to. I did. However, on FreeRangeFrog's talk page, he told me to continue to do it, but stick to the policies by the word. So that's what started me back into it. I didn't 'break' any promise, as I never made any specific promise to anyone. I said 'for awhile' and that could mean anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreeRangeFrog&oldid=608838537#Request_for_move <- This is where he told me to continue, so I did.
  • I did not blank the notice, I immediately archived it. It's in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tutelary/Archive_1#Page_patrols The reason why I blanked it is that I had a lot of things happen that week, and the notice on my talk page by you that you were going to pursue a topic ban on me was stressing me out. Here's your exact wording Please take this as a warning - continuing this behavior will result in my pursuing a topic ban to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. I see that you did good on your threat.
  • Also, I have been deferring in most cases to proposed deletions and tags, per your suggestion. You can view my PROD log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tutelary/PROD_log | You can also see that the articles that I've nominated for afd have been deleted, and if an admin (by some basis of this non binding dispute resolution) manages to go through my deleted contributions, I bet you they would see properly speedied articles. I've nominated attack pages, I've nominated hoax pages, I've nominated all kinds of pages that would warrant advertising. I believe that encompasses everything that you were attempting to portray, so please leave an upcoming message. I have made mistakes with new page patrolling, that is true, but pursuing a topic ban for someone who is nominating the majority of the articles they nominate do actually get speedily deleted I think is in bad taste, but understandable, given the context.


I Doubt it Shes Done A Decent amount of good Patrolling and as she wrote before Most of her CSD Nominations Were Deleted. I don't see why a Topic Ban is needed and even i have done a bit of Blunders myself. I think this is a little Extreme In Short. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Imzadi1979[edit]

Seems to be more of a content disagreement than a NPP issue. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About an hour after my new article, List of Intrastate U.S. Highways, was published, this patroller put in an immediate proposal and nomination for deletion. One of the factors that this person cited was that my overview paragraph was similar to one that already existed. That paragraph was originally deleted from United States Numbered Highways, and its information was put on List of Intrastate U.S. Highways, where it would be better served and where it existed on 3/4/14 at 02:26 UTC when the page was approved. But the patroller undid the deletion without my knowledge before I even got a chance to publish my own article. Then the patroller copied part of my article word-for-word to List of United States Numbered Highways at 03:51 UTC, and then tried to claim that I was the copier.

Now I'm under the impression that Wikipedia articles are free for anyone to use and build upon. But if this patroller is trying to use dirty tricks to get my article eliminated, I think we have a problem. Greggens (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Greggens has misstated facts, and a few points of information are in order:
Point #1: the paragraph was deleted from the one article, where it should remain regardless of the presence of another article. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has a policy that prefers that United States Numbered Highways that exist in a single state be over 300 miles in length. This information is still germane to the topic of the system, just like the paragraph in the article about AASHTO's policy preference to eliminate US Highways with letter suffixes. So no matter what happens with this other article, that paragraph should remain where it was.
Point #2: per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, I copied the content from United States Numbered Highway System, and properly attributed it to that source, see diff. I made no such claim in the AfD discussion that Greggens performed the copy.
Point #3: if you want to be hyper-technicall, Greggens violated licensing requirements by not attributing the source of a paragraph he used from another article when he created his list article, but since he is new here, I have not felt a need to correct him on his failure to copy content properly, in part because I probably did the same thing many times when I was new here without knowing it was an issue.
Point #4: being approved through the AfC process does not insulate an article from normal editing processes, including proposing an article be deleted.
Point #5: I did not cite the similarity of a paragraph of text in nominating it for deletion. Rather, I said that the "Topic is not notable for its own article." In addition, I said that "By adding simple notes to the existing list, the information [that some US Highways lie in a single state] is still present in the encyclopedia."
So in short, I have no idea what all the fuss is about, other than the appearance that Greggens is not happy. Above this very edit window, it says, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." There is no term or condition that says his submissions can't be proposed for deletion. Imzadi 1979  09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Greggens, welcome and thanks for bringing your concerns here. I have looked over yours and Imzadi1979's edits, and I really think everyone did their best. I do not see a lot of newpage patrol activity by Imzadi1979, so this seems like more of a "should we have this particular list article about highways" issue. WP:AFD was a reasonable place to have that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Rudra John Cena[edit]

Patroller asked to stop patrolling activities until they get more experience. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed this speedy deletion request this morning which seemed quite erroneous. Relevant factors include:

  1. The CSD tag was placed less than an hour after the article's creation.
  2. The article creator is an experienced editor.
  3. The patroller is not proficient in English.
  4. The patroller is a comparatively new editor who has already made an application to become an admin.

I'm not exactly sure what's supposed to happen now but, as this process seems experimental, thought you'd like to have a fresh example to work upon. Andrew (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for your post here and being our "test case". Looking over this user's patrol activities, I agree that they are too new to be successful at NPP. I see at least one other spurious CSD nomination, here, in their recent patrols. Both of those articles clearly identified their content; the A1 speedy deletion nomination requires that the article have so little content that it is impossible to identify the subject of the article. User:Kudpung has already posted to their talk page asking for them to stand down; I see they have reviewed two pages since then but hopefully they have received the message. If they start requesting speedy deletions again, the next step would be to bring the issue up at WP:AN to pursue a topic ban. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.